Programming repertoire that meets stylistic breadth
A student is assembling a 12-minute performance program for assessment. The criteria reward stylistic breadth, technical control, and coherent programming. Her current list: three Romantic piano works (a Chopin nocturne, a Brahms intermezzo, a Liszt consolations movement), all slow to moderate, all in minor or modal keys, totalling 11 minutes. She plays them well. She has 6 weeks to the assessment and has also prepared a Baroque prelude (2 minutes) and a short contemporary work (3 minutes) that she finds technically difficult and has performed only once. The program must be submitted in Week 2.
1. Evaluate the current program against the criteria and recommend a final program.
Read the worked answer
The current program is coherent but narrow: three Romantic character pieces, similar tempi, and similar moods. It demonstrates control but offers little evidence of stylistic breadth, and the sameness may make the performance feel monotonous.
Recommendation: replace one Romantic work (probably the Liszt, which is closest in function to the Brahms) with the Baroque prelude, and include the contemporary work only if it can be brought to performance standard in the time available.
A defensible final program:
- Baroque prelude (2 min)
- Chopin nocturne (about 4-5 min)
- Brahms intermezzo (about 3 min)
- Contemporary work (3 min), conditional
This spans three stylistic periods, contrasts tempo and texture, and stays within 12 minutes. The Liszt is the weakest loss because it duplicates the Brahms's role.
2. The contemporary work is risky. How should the student decide whether to include it by Week 2?
Read the worked answer
Set a decision test with a deadline. By the end of Week 1, she should perform the contemporary work once at tempo, record it, and assess against three questions:
- Can she play it accurately at tempo at least twice in a row?
- Are the difficult passages secure, or still luck-dependent?
- Does it add stylistic contrast the program otherwise lacks?
If the answer to the first two is no, she should drop it and either extend an existing work or accept a shorter program within the limit. Including an insecure piece risks technical-control marks and performance confidence. The program should be chosen for what can be reliably delivered, with breadth achieved through secure repertoire rather than optimistic inclusion. The submission in Week 2 should therefore be the version she can defend, with any conditional element resolved before submission.